Man killed on level crossing "had headphones on"

A MAN who died after being struck by a train was riding his bike and listening to headphones at the time, it is claimed.

The man has been named locally as Phil Dawn, 34, of Kirkby-in-Ashfield, and is believed to be a father-of-three.

The tragedy happened at the Kingsmill Barrow crossing between Sutton Park and Mansfield railway stations at about 4.30pm on Wednesday.

A British Transport Police spokesman said: "The incident is currently being treated as non-suspicious and at this time appears to have been a tragic accident. Our thoughts are with the man's family and friends.

"The Rail Accident Investigation Branch has also been notified. A file will be prepared for the coroner.

"We believe at this stage he was riding his bike and had headphones on."

The train involved was the 3.55pm Nottingham to Mansfield service. Lines were closed but reopened 5.30pm.

The Office for Rail Regulation said it had been told of the incident and had launched its own investigation.

There have been a number of deaths at level crossings in Notts in recent years.

In July last year, a man died after being hit by a train near the Meadow Lane level crossing in Long Eaton.

In January 2009, a man was killed near the Barton Lane level crossing, in Attenborough.

And in November 2008, Jean Hoggart, 65, and her seven-year-old grandson Michael Dawson died at a pedestrian-only crossing off Moor Road, near Bestwood Village.

Mrs Hoggart's husband, Laurence, sued Network Rail for failing to ensure the crossing was safely lit and to put up adequate warning signs. The case was settled out of court.

Comments

@Joanofarc2
I guess your a motorist? the same could be said about those who eat, drink, talk, use satnav's/mobile while driving. These distractions are dangerous, though people is shinny metal vehicles forget about things like this.
Does anyone actually listen to the ruling about mobile phone use while driving?
Prevention is the word, making sure people stay safe. Not idiot comments about people asking for trouble. That isn't going to help!

by proudmummy11 Saturday, May 5 2012, 4:18PM
"I was going to put something like that cars bikes etc can swirve to try and avoid a a accident a train cant all it can do is slam on the brakes and prey and hope."
by proudmummy11 Saturday, May 5 2012, 9:05PM
"but the real vitim in this situation is the train driver, all he can do when he sees someone on the line is drop anchor (train driver speak for applying the emergengy brake), and pray.... Too mnay people seem to think that trains can stop on a sixpence but this is not the case, a class 156 diesel multiple unit fully loaded travelling at 75mph will struggle to stop inside a mile with the e brake applied.
A tragedy yes it is, but no one can say that the fellow that was hit was totally blameless.
So how about now we stop attacking the only person on this tread that seems to know what they are talking about and get back to our own daily lives."
- If a fully loaded HGV driver ran down a cyclist and tried to argue that his steering was dodgy, his brakes were failing, he couldn't stop on a sixpence, so it wasn't his fault he hit a cyclist on a crossing because he was doing 75mph, or even 30mph, what would the reaction be?
- Especially from the rail industry and unions sponsored road "safety" lobby?!?!

by FormerlyW Sunday, May 6 2012, 1:45PM
'How come, if it had had happened on an ordinary road and not a rail road ...'
Because we don't have railroads, only railways in this country."
- Not like you to evade the question, avoid the issue, refuse to debate the point, and try to get me sidetracked onto "discussing" an irrelevance.
- Oh, sorry, it's the only thing you troll here for!

by FormerlyW Saturday, May 5 2012, 1:36PM
"I would imagine if a train went down the middle of a quiet residential street with open access all along the lengths of the tracks and people legally allowed to cross wherever they need, then a 20 MPH limit would be appropriate."
- So you're saying that if a car is driving down a former railway route that has been converted to a road, when it comes to the former station, where there's now a bus stop and pedestrian crossing where the old level crossing was, it would be OK for the car to do the ton through the area, even though the bus stop was overcrowded, and the crossing extremely busy?!?!
- If you:
"would imagine if a train went down the middle of a quiet residential street with open access all along the lengths of the tracks and people legally allowed to cross wherever they need, then a 20 MPH limit would be appropriate."
- Then why don't you think a 5 MPH "limit would be appropriate" past overcrowded platforms, busy level crossings, and other sections of the track where the rail companies and their drivers KNOW there is a HIGH risk of pedestrians (and cyclists) on the line?!?!
- Or do you, for some reason, think that there is more chance of a pedestrian on the line if it were to run down a quiet residential street than where it crosses a busy pedestrian crossing?!?!?

by proudmummy11 Saturday, May 5 2012, 12:09PM
"@Kumkwat You're an idiot. I can tell just from your stupid comment that you have never been at the controls of a real train. suggesting a rail hump is about the most idiotic thing that I have ever heard, a sudden hump in the track would de-rail a passenger diesel multiple unit."
- And you are obviously so intelligent from the way that satire soared right over your head!
"as for a 20mph limit, for barrow crossings such as this one there is clear signage for the pedestrian stating that they should STOP, LOOOK, LISTEN Beware of Trains, and there is a whistle board for the train driver meaning that they must sound the high and low tone on thier horn when passing. From the looks of this article this guy nither looked nor listened if he had looked he would have seen the train without any issues, as trains are required to display a high intesity headlight even in the hours of daylight, and had he been listening he would have heard the trains horn."
- Unfortunately cyclists, and pedestrians, are brainwashed by the rail industry funded, sorry, public tranport supported, sorry, road "safety" lobby to "reclaim" the roads, that it's a driver's, and not their, responsibility to ensure their safety, and that they have a "right" to step/ walk/ run out into the path of any vehicle and it MUST stop for them (even if it's a very heavy vehicle with no steering, practically no brakes, and a driver dead at the controls).
"The person getting the sympathy in this case should be the train driver, because the victim is a clear cut candidate for the darwain awards."
- In as much as the Rail Industry/Unions funded road "safety" campaigns are so stupid only an idiot would be taken in by them you mean?!
- In as much as your stupid comment that equally applies to people who either have never been at the controls of a real car, truck or motorbike suggesting a road hump is not about the most idiotic thing that you could have ever heard of, as a sudden hump in the road (at a supposed already dangerous location) would "de-rail" a motorbike, and at best distract, at worst cause to lose control, even a 4x4 driver.
- Do you agree with me that instead of vilifying and demonising road drivers for the deaths of Darwinian cyclists and pedestrians the police should target their There Is No Such Thing As An Accident approach to the self-styled so-called "vulnerable victims"?

by engee7 Sunday, May 6 2012, 11:36PM
"yes joanofarc...lets make uasing headphones a crimnal offence. i really hope youre trolling.."
Are YOU trolling, engee?!
An ordinary road driver can be prosecuted for taking a sip of water (for safety reasons, to keep his brain refreshed, active and alert) whilst parked up at the lights, out of gear, handbrake on, because, apparently, he's not in proper control of his vehicle.
So what's wrong with "lets make using headphones a crimnal offence" when it stops cyclists being aware of dangers on the road (and so putting others at potential risk!)?

"A British Transport Police spokesman said: "The incident is currently being treated as non-suspicious and at this time appears to have been a tragic accident. Our thoughts are with the man's family and friends."
How come, if iit had had happened on an ordinary road and not a rail road it would have been:
"A British Police spokesman said: 'The incident is currently being treated as suspicious and would remind the public that there is no such thing as an accident. Our thoughts are':"
What can we prosecute the driver for?!